Who is more pushy with their POV atheists/agnostics or the religious.

[Cutlass]

Interesting article I was linked to elsewhere....

Are We All Christians Now?
By vorjack on July 20, 2009 in Bible, Christianity, Jesus.

By VorJack

John Shelby Spong once joked that talking to moderate Christians is like watching someone play rummy: they know they have to discard something, but what? “I’ll get rid of the virgin birth, but I have to keep the resurrection. I’ll give up on the divinity of Jesus, but I need some way to hold on to substitutionary atonement.”

The joke, for Spong, was that he’s willing to lay down everything. He’s willing to toss any card that he finds unacceptable, even if that leaves him empty handed. But this raises the question: is he still playing the same game? And if you’re no longer playing the same game, why are you still at the table?

Reluctance

I am hesitant to bring up the matter of definition. Firstly, because this is the kind of stick that the fundamentalists have used to beat the liberal Christians for a century. The whole point of the original “fundamentals” was to lay out the set of beliefs required to be a real Christian. That’s not an act I want to follow.

Further, what right have I to try and define Christianity? But by the same token, what right does anyone have? I certainly don’t own the copyright, but neither does anyone else. This is probably not a question that’s ever going to be fully answered.

Definition

The only reason I bring this up at all is that atheist blogs are frequently beset by commenters who are eager to explain the real Christianity. The more even-handed just want to be clear that there are many different interpretations, and that fundamentalism isn’t the only form of Christianity. The latter group is right, of course, but when pressed to provide a criteria for their interpretation, things get vague.

There seems to be nothing — no biblical passage, no creedal statement, no traditional belief — that all Christians agree on. I would think that substitutionary atonement — “Jesus died for your sins” — would be non-negotiable. After all, this is probably the most basic Christian belief, and possibly the original impulse that led to the formation of the first Jewish-Christian sects. And yet I frequently come across self-professed Christians who tell me they reject this basic idea.

To sever yourself from 2,000 years of Christian thought takes brass, and I respect that. But to do so and still say you’re engaged with the tradition seems almost delusional.
Communication

I want to talk about religion. I want to talk about Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. I particularly want to talk about Christianity, since I live in a culture that’s saturated in it. But this gets increasingly difficult as the word itself seems to grow increasingly nebulous.

Is the only thing that unites Christians the fact that they all call themselves Christians? Is anyone who finds the golden rule a good idea a Christian? Are we all Christians now? Are none of us?

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/07/20/are-we-all-christians-now/

 

[cardgame]

Thanks Cutlass

The joke, for Spong, was that he’s willing to lay down everything. He’s willing to toss any card that he finds unacceptable, even if that leaves him empty handed. But this raises the question: is he still playing the same game? And if you’re no longer playing the same game, why are you still at the table?

So true.

 

[Mowque]

That is a very neat article.

my priest calls that action of 'gin rummy'- Cafeteria Catholic

 

[GenMarshall]

Well an atheist isn't going to be bothered by other atheists denouncing religion, now are they?

You're going to have other atheists out atheist the other atheist to see who is the better atheist.

Man that's a toung twister .

 

[Hygro]

Are you kidding? Surt is brilliant! He's guarding a realm that kills trespassers anyway... so he gets the credit for having an important sounding job, he looks totally doing it (because, really, don't you have days where you wish your job involved wielding a sword of fire?), and if he spaces out at work, there aren't any negative consequences!

But if everything is on fire how does he know his sword is especially fiery?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But if everything is on fire how does he know his sword is especially fiery?

I think the sword is some sort of Euphemism and he could have some sort of infection which causes a burning sensation?

 

[cardgame]

I'm about 150% sure it was to make him evermore awesome.

 

[Turner]

Back on topic please.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That's ******ed! So the Fire Giants live in the realm of fire, where only the Fire Giants survive. There lies Surt, with a flaming sword. Why does he need a flaming sword? Either it's a redundant statement (since everything is flaming there) or it's a useless feature since they are all immune. Great sword, Surt.

Spoiler :

If it were a regular sword, it would melt. From all the heat and stuff. So he needs a flaming sword to have any weapon at all. Personally, I'd hate to get hit with a sword made of meat, it would probably feel like a dead arm and hurt quite a bit. shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up

EDIT: Oh, and I think religious are probably more pushy overall, but that atheists are far more disrespectful about their "proselytizing." Theists don't go around telling athiests that they're deluded fools, mentally disturbed/unstable, or not as smart as they, because they fail to believe in God.

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: And let that be the last OT tangent in this thread....

Feel free to start another thread on it, if you really need to discuss Norse Mythology.

 

[BasketCase]

Mark gets two minutes in the penalty box for not putting an "other" option in the poll. Two minutes being, he has to sit in the box with me while I talk at him about how awesome a President George Bush was.

Religious activists and atheist activists are equally pushy, and I hate them all. What religion you choose to follow (if any) is your choice, and yours alone, and nobody, whether religious or atheist, has the right to interfere in that choice.

 

[Mowque]

Religious activists and atheist activists are equally pushy, and I hate them all. What religion you choose to follow (if any) is your choice, and yours alone, and nobody, whether religious or atheist, has the right to interfere in that choice.

What if my religion says I SHOULD be pushy?

 

[Turner]

Then find a better religion.

 

[Mowque]

Then find a better religion.

But he just said no one has a right to try and make me change religions!

 

[Seon]

He is not making you change religion. It was a friendly advice (before he gets mad)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I just read the term "cookie cutter atheism". Googled for it, found a lot of people calling others that, but can't find an explanation.

HALP!

 

[Turner]

The way I see it is that you hear someone is an atheist, and automatically assume they believe in x, y, and z, because they're atheists, and all atheists are the same. Like they were cookies all cut out by the same form used to shape them.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ah right I see, thanks. I like the term. It's cute

 

[Phlegmak]

The way I see it is that you hear someone is an atheist, and automatically assume they believe in x, y, and z, because they're atheists, and all atheists are the same. Like they were cookies all cut out by the same form used to shape them.

You just described these terms:

Republican
Democrat
Communist
liberal (in the US)
conservative (in the US)
Objectivist

 

[Turner]

Which is why I always quantify that I'm a Rockefeller Republican, instead of just a Republican. And even by that, I'm not everything your typical RR is.

I suppose now I should start calling myself a Moderate Republican, but Rockefeller Republican sounds better.